If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

There's a lot of things, unfortunately, that Christians in general don't know how to properly explain without resorting to, as you may have heard, "Goddidit," but they don't provide any details as to what He did, or how.

It's sad that they are unable to defend their position.

And yes, I am a YEC Christian. Let me see if I can answer some of your questions and challenges...

Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently.

One of my favorite topics to get into.

My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years.

Alright, so this assertion is kinda-sorta begging the question and a "just so" argument. Who told you that they're older? How do they know? Completely debunked with just one assertion?

Hmmm, let's dive in a bit, shall we?

For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away.

It always helps in a discussion when you have common ground. This statement (on the Andromeda galaxy) is something we agree on.

So, obviously, that brings up the question, "if the universe is young, then how did the light from that galaxy (which, as you stated below would indicate that the light got here from there before the galaxy existed, obviously a contradiction) get here within 6-10 thousand years?"

Well, The Bible states (a few times) that God "stretched out the heavens." Now, many Christians have tried to understand what that means, but the one theory that I've seen that makes the most sense is this:

God made light on Day 1 of creation. Light, without a source, as there were no stars or light sources (other than God) at this point.

There's a passage in Genesis 1 that, while literal, might be used metaphorically to describe how God stretched out the heavens. Here it is:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

The Hebrew word used in verse 12 for "brought forth" is the word "yatsa," and it basically means "to pull out." In context, it seems that when God created the plants, he literally pulled them out (as in, made them grow) of the ground, causing them to sprout and grow. This was on Day 3.

On Day 4 of creation, God made the stars in the sky, the sun, and the moon. Now, the Bible doesn't tell us when exactly God stretched out the heavens, but we can deduce (due to the fact that it's when he was working on what's in space) that He did it on Day 4.

So, what does God pulling plants out of the ground have to do with stretching out the heavens?

Well, think of it this way, God, the Creator of light, who obviously has control of it, put the light in the stars, and then literally pulled it out (or stretched out) of them to the earth.

Meaning, until we have both a source and a detector and a way to synchronize the two, it's not really possible to measure how long it takes light from an event that happens in Andromeda to reach earth.

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature.

Consider that no Population III stars have ever been seen. Also consider that galaxies that are 13.4 billion+ light years away look very mature where only infant galaxies should exist.

I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle.

I agree. It's not a sufficient enough argument.

After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis.

Well, if the Bible is to be believed, then it also stands to reason that what it says about the cosmos is true:

Spoiler

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard.Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat. - Psalm 19:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase.

Stars entering their dying phase would be consistent with the Fall of Man corrupting the universe, and the distance would be consistent with the above proposed theory on the stretching out of the heavens.

By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Agreed.

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years?

I'd say no older than 10,000 years. And given the above arguments and evidence, it would be unreasonable to automatically assume that it is older than 6-10 thousand years old.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion?

Is a refutation of a straw-man "very sensible"?

After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise.

I don't think it was any trouble at all for Him.

I think He created the universe exactly how He wanted it, and yes, with stars that are billions of light years away, but stretched out the light from them to the earth (and possibly beyond).

Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

I said
lolol
SCIENCE
1 Tim 6:20-21
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge--
21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.
2 Cor 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
Eph 5:7
7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
Matt 12:39
39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
II Th 2:10-11
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
John 8:51
51 "Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death."
Col 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--
21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using-- according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Mark 8:35
35 "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it.
Col 2:8-9
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
Rom 1:17
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
Matt 15:8-9
8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "
Acts 19:19
19 Also, many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver.
Heb 4:2
2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
Rom 14:22
22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
2 Cor 1:9
9 Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead,
Luke 16:15
15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Rom 8:20
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
1 Tim 4:1-2
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
Rom 1:20-23
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Matt 13:24-30
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
28 "He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
29 "But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
Matt 23:24
24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
(NKJ)

xxxx Science is a delusion in life. God said if they dont believe His Word He would send strong delusions. So that they would believe the lie. Then cast them into hell for it. They have always been close to finding the truth, but havent found it. They will always be close but will never find it.

II Th 2:9-12
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(NKJ)

[1Co 2:1, 4-7, 9-10, 13-15
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. ...
4 And my speech and my preaching [were] not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory, ...
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
10 But God has revealed [them] to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. ...
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged by no one.

[1Co 1:21, 25-27
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. ...
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called].
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;

My post is not "Goddidit." If it was, I wouldn't have said what God did and how.

Where did you say how 'god' did anything?

How do you have light separate from the processes that create light, then 'put it into' a star so it can come out again? How did your god do that?
How is can light go at different speeds in different directions? How does your god make that happen?

Alright, so this assertion is kinda-sorta begging the question and a "just so" argument. Who told you that they're older? How do they know? Completely debunked with just one assertion?

Well, you did say "kinda sorta" question begging. But I fail to see how I begged the question at all. Perhaps if you explained precisely where my reasoning became circular, it might help.

I do think that young earth creationism can be debunked with my one assertion. To me, YOUNG earth creationism rests on the assumption that the earth and the cosmos are young. One only needs to prove that the cosmos is old to completely debunk it. Admittedly, there are many other tenets to YECism that I have failed to address--for instance, my observation about Andromeda says nothing about evolution, and does not disprove the claim that God made Adam and Eve etc. etc. But that doesn't matter. The fact is, YECism rests on the assumption that the universe is young. All one needs to do to disprove it, is demonstrate that it is old. It really is a house of cards. (Old earth creationism is not, but young earth creationism is.)

It always helps in a discussion when you have common ground. This statement (on the Andromeda galaxy) is something we agree on.

Quite true. Although I'm sure you are completely wrong about the age of the universe, I like that your approach is rational, and your tone is civil. That's not always a given on the internet, so I like to show appreciation when I encounter it.

There's a passage in Genesis 1 that, while literal, might be used metaphorically to describe how God stretched out the heavens. Here it is:

Okay, you've shown how it could happen that the light got here before it was "supposed to." But I find your rendition implausible. I'm a nonbeliever, so when I read something in the Bible I say, "that might be true, and then I look for evidence of its truth outside of the Bible. I take it that when you read the Bible that you say "that is true." That might color our respective investigations differently. I think my way is more reliable because it is not prone to confirmation bias. Your method of investigation (and correct me if I'm wrong that you assume everything in the Bible is true) is prone to the foibles of bias and presupposition.

Meaning, until we have both a source and a detector and a way to synchronize the two, it's not really possible to measure how long it takes light from an event that happens in Andromeda to reach earth.

The problem here is that we know the speed of light because we have measured it many times two ways. We don't have to measure it two ways every time. Once we know it, we know it. Then we can plug it into our equations and measure it one way. We don't have to measure it both ways from Andromeda.

Is a refutation of a straw-man "very sensible"?

You can call my conclusion false, but I do not see any error in my logic. I did not strawman; YECism makes the claim that the universe is 6,000 (or so) years old. I challenged that aspect of the theory. I did not misrepresent it at all. If I did, that would be strawmanning. I absolutely did not strawman. Nor did I beg the question. Stated formally, my argument is as follows:

1. Young earth creationism rests on the assumption the the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.
2. In order to debunk young earth creationism, one only needs to show that the universe is older than 10,000 years.
3. Observations of the Andromeda galaxy demonstrate that the universe is (at least) 2.5 million years old.
Conclusion: Therefore young earth creationism is false.

I think my logic is sound. You definitely have problems with the third premise, as is evidenced by your post. But it also seems (going by your post) that you accept premise 1 and 2. If premises 1, 2, and 3 are true, then the conclusion is true. Now that I have clearly expressed my argument, please elaborate on specifically where my reasoning is fallacious.

Short answer? No.

Keep in mind that my question was "Is it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism" and NOT "Is young earth creationism false." You can hold a false assumption for good reasons.

What if you are a homicide detective investigating a murder? One of your suspects is "Brad." You think that Brad commited the murder because there are angry texts and death threats from Brad found on the victim's phone, the murder weapon belongs to brad and has his fingerprints on it, and Brad is the sole beneficiary of the victim's life insurance policy.

Now let's say that you are wrong about Brad. The mob set him up. They commited the crime and framed Brad. Now, just because you are wrong about Brad doesn't mean that your conclusion was unreasonable. No! After all, a ton of evidence pointed to Brad as the culprit.

Even if it is true that God created the cosmos in six days (as it is posited in Genesis) you still have to admit that there is a ton of evidence that leads people to believe otherwise. That's what I meant when I asked if it was reasonable to doubt young earth creationism.

The problem here is that we know the speed of light because we have measured it many times two ways. We don't have to measure it two ways every time. Once we know it, we know it. Then we can plug it into our equations and measure it one way. We don't have to measure it both ways from Andromeda.

Let's say you are measuring the speed of light by timing the return journey to a mirror some distance away. The YEC claim is that because you can't know that the speed was the same in both directions, which they think gives them an excuse to claim it goes much faster one way, and much slower the other, therefore anything they like to claim about the age of starlight is valid.

I think it's much more logical and reasonable to doubt and discount evolution and the 57 theories required to prop it up. Count up every theory connected to evolution and the big bang etc. I'll wait.

It is reasonable to doubt any theory. And if scientists were saying to "believe in" evolution "because they said so", that would be enough cause to dismiss it right then and there. Biologists and astrophysicists have examined the evidence in the natural world and arrived at certain conclusions. It's within anyone's rights to doubt or discount what they have to say. Part of the reason science works so well is that conclusions are tested, retested, and scrutinized again and again.

What I would call unreasonable is to doubt something simply because there are 57 or more different theories propping it up. When we put satellites into orbit, NASA takes into account many physical theories from (Newtonian physics, thermodynamics, rocket science etc.). Let's say there is someone who doubts that satellites exist or that we have the ability to put them into orbit. Fine. So you go about explaining the scientific principles that allow this to happen.

Would it be reasonable for them to cut you off half way and say, "Nope. I don't believe in satellites. Too many theories are needed to explain their existence." ??? Just because something is complicated, doesn't make it false. (It would be a humorous example except that there are actually people who doubt that we have satellites in orbit )

It is reasonable to doubt any theory. And if scientists were saying to "believe in" evolution "because they said so", that would be enough cause to dismiss it right then and there. Biologists and astrophysicists have examined the evidence in the natural world and arrived at certain conclusions. It's within anyone's rights to doubt or discount what they have to say. Part of the reason science works so well is that conclusions are tested, retested, and scrutinized again and again.

What I would call unreasonable is to doubt something simply because there are 57 or more different theories propping it up. When we put satellites into orbit, NASA takes into account many physical theories from (Newtonian physics, thermodynamics, rocket science etc.). Let's say there is someone who doubts that satellites exist or that we have the ability to put them into orbit. Fine. So you go about explaining the scientific principles that allow this to happen.

Would it be reasonable for them to cut you off half way and say, "Nope. I don't believe in satellites. Too many theories are needed to explain their existence." ??? Just because something is complicated, doesn't make it false. (It would be a humorous example except that there are actually people who doubt that we have satellites in orbit )

I believe satellites are up there but the images and footage is not accurate, I think 99% of the are geostationary and a few actually move.

I do think that young earth creationism can be debunked with my one assertion. To me, YOUNG earth creationism rests on the assumption that the earth and the cosmos are young. One only needs to prove that the cosmos is old to completely debunk it.

True.... Likewise, old earth beliefs can be debunked if you prove the universe is young.

Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician

...It really is a house of cards. (Old earth creationism is not..

You have that backwards. Theistic beliefs about an old earth reject what Scripture plainly says. Old earth beliefs destroy the purpose of the Calvary. If death, pain, suffering, thorns etc existed before man sinned... then why did Jesus go to the cross?

Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician

Okay, you've shown how it could happen that the light got here before it was "supposed to."

You state you are an unbeliever, so iow you must start off with a whole set of assumptions. Did nothing create that light?... Was there a cause that existed eternally?..... Was the speed of light trillions of times faster in the past like some secular astronomers believe? https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/w...f-the-universe

Old earth/ universe is a belief system (as is young earth). Both belief systems interpret evidence to fit priori biases. But... Young earth beliefs fit the evidence best... of course :-)